Vehda Bali @ Rajbansi Devi @ Chanda Devi v. The State Of Bihar
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Criminal Miscellaneous No.30720 of 2017 Arising Out of PS.Case No. -688 Year- 2016 Thana -MADHEPURA District- MADHEPURA ====================================================== Vehda Bali @ Rajbansi Devi @ Chanda Devi wife of Manoj Kamti, resident of Village- Sukhasan, Chakla, Ward No. 2, P.S. & DistrictMadhepura. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
The State of Bihar .... .... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Sri Satyadev Prasad Singh Yadav ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER 08-09-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned APP for the State.
Petitioner is languishing in judicial custody since 08.11.2016 in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No. 688 of 2016 for offences punishable under Sections 363, 366/34 of the Indian Penal Code.
The prosecution case, as lodged by the informant, is that his minor daughter Madhu Kumari age 15 years has been taken away by the petitioner along with two other accused persons and did not return. It is alleged that on 07.11.2016 the petitioner had called the informant's daughter and thereafter did not return. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30720 of 2017 (4) dt.08-09-2017 2/3 petitioner that she is a neighbor of the informant and was having good relations with the informant's daughter and the daughter of the informant used to go together with the petitioner's daughter to school. He submits that no overt act has been committed by the petitioner and as such Section 366 I.P.C. is not applicable against her. It has also been submitted that it is only on the basis of suspicion the petitioner has been made accused. She is a lady having three minor children and that charge-sheet has already been submitted, hence there is no chance of tampering with the prosecution witnesses.
However, learned APP for the State opposes the prayer for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances and the materials on record, let petitioner, above named, be enlarged on bail on furnishing bail bond of Rs.10,000/-(Ten Thousand) with two sureties of the like amount each to the satisfaction of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Madhepura in connection with Madhepura P.S. Case No. 688 of 2016, subject to the condition that one of the bailors would be a close relative of the petitioner having sufficient immovable property within the jurisdiction of the concerned police station/ court, who will file an affidavit stating her relationship with the petitioner and that petitioner will appear
Patna High Court Cr.Misc. No.30720 of 2017 (4) dt.08-09-2017 3/3 before the learned court below during trial as and when required and failure to appear on two consecutive dates without assigning any reason will entail cancellation of her bail bonds. (Nilu Agrawal, J) Devendra/- U T